Halaguena vs PAL Petition for Declaratory Relief
-
Upload
nick-salao -
Category
Documents
-
view
31 -
download
0
description
Transcript of Halaguena vs PAL Petition for Declaratory Relief
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINESNATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION
REGIONAL TRIAL COURTMAKATI CITY
PATRICIA HALAGUEÑA, MA. ANGELITA L.PULIDO, MA. TERESITA P. SANTIAGO, MARIANNE V. KATINDIG, BERNADETTE A. CABALQUINTO, LORNA B. TUGAS, MARY CHRISTINE A. VILLARETE, CYNTHIA A. STEHMEIER, ROSE ANNA G. VICTA, NOEMI R. CRESENCIO and other female flight attendants of PHILIPPINE AIRLINES,
Plaintiffs,
- versus - Civil Case No.: _______For Declaratory Relief withPrayer for Issuance of Temporary Restraining Order
andWrit of Preliminary Injunction
PHILIPPINE AIRLINES,Defendant.
x-----------------------------------------x
COMPLAINT
Plaintiffs, by counsel, to this Honorable Court most
respectfully state:
NATURE OF ACTION
This is a special civil action for Declaratory Relief under Rule
63 of the Rules of Court.
I.
THE PARTIES
Individual Plaintiffs
1. Plaintiff PATRICIA HALAGUEÑA is a Filipino, of legal
age, a resident of No. 420 San Bartolome Street, Ayala Alabang
Village, Muntinlupa City.
2. Plaintiff MA. ANGELITA L. PULIDO is a Filipino, of
legal age, a resident of No. 3 St. James Avenue, Lopez Village,
Paranaque City.
3. Plaintiff MA. TERESITA P. SANTIAGO is a Filipino, of
legal age, a resident of No. 65 Geneva Street, BF Homes,
Paranaque City.
4. Plaintiff MARIANNE V. KATINDIG is a Filipino, of
legal age, a resident of No. 43 Jasmin Street, Phase 3, Town and
Country Executive Village, Antipolo City.
5. Plaintiff BERNADETTE A. CABALQUINTO is a Filipino,
of legal age, a resident of 138 J. Young corner Conrad Streets,
Moonwalk Subdivision, Phase I, Paranaque City.
6. Plaintiff LORNA B. TUGAS is a Filipino, of legal age, a
resident of No. 134 Batangas West, Ayala Alabang Village,
Muntinlupa City.
7. Plaintiff MARY CHRISTINE A. VILLARETE is a
Filipino, of legal age, a resident of No. 58 Nicanor Ramirez Street,
Quezon City.
8. Plaintiff CYNTHIA A. STEHMEIER is a Filipino, of legal
age, a resident of No. 327 Apo Street, Ayala Alabang Village,
Muntinlupa City.
2
2
9. Plaintiff ROSE ANNA G. VICTA is a Filipino, of legal
age, a resident of No. 7 Admiral Ty Town Houmes, South Admiral
Village, Paranaque.
10. Plaintiff NOEMI R. CRESENCIO is a Filipino, of legal
age, a resident of No. 12 B Edward Street, Christine Village, De la
Paz, Pasig.
11. Plaintiffs may be served orders, notices and processes
through undersigned counsels.
Plaintiffs as Class
12. Plaintiffs sue in their individual capacities and as a
class. The class consists of all currently employed female flight
attendants hired by defendant PHILIPPINE AIRLINES (hereafter,
“Philippine Airlines”) before 22 November 1996. As will be shown,
the date 22 November 1996 is material because Philippine
Airlines’ discriminatory policy on retirement as provided for in the
assailed Collective Bargaining Agreement, applies to all female
flight attendants hired before 22 November 1996.
13. The subject matter of this complaint is of common and
general interest to the members of the class. The persons
affected, belonging to the same class, are so numerous,
numbering around six hundred (600) in all, that it is impracticable
to join all as parties.
14. The individual plaintiffs, all women, are sufficiently
numerous and representative of the class they represent.
Defendant
15. Philippine Airlines is a corporation organized and
existing under Philippine law with principal office at PAL Center
3
3
Building, Legaspi Street, Legaspi Village, Makati City where it
may be served summons and processes.
II.
THE FACTS
16. Philippine Airlines is in the business of air
transportation. Philippine Airlines is Asia’s first airline, having
taken to the skies as early as 1941. With a huge aircraft fleet and
a route network that spans thirty (30) foreign cities and twenty-
one (21) domestic points, Philippine Airlines is one of the biggest
and most prominent corporations in the Philippines and the South
East Asian region.
17. Plaintiffs are employed by Philippine Airlines as flight
attendants. Plaintiffs entered Philippine Airlines’ employ on
different dates before 22 November 1996.
18. Plaintiffs are bona fide members of the FLIGHT
ATTENDANTS AND STEWARDS ASSOCIATION OF THE
PHILIPPINES (hereafter, “FASAP”), a labor organization certified
as the sole and exclusive bargaining representative of the flight
attendants, flight stewards and pursers (hereafter, “cabin
attendants”) of Philippine Airlines.
19. On 11 July 2001, Philippine Airlines and FASAP entered
into a written Collective Bargaining Agreement for the years 2000
to 2005 (hereafter, “PAL-FASAP 2000-2005 CBA”) that provides,
among others:
“ xxxSection 114. Retirement Benefits
4
4
A. For the Cabin Attendants hired before 22 November 1996:
1. Early Retirement
Any Cabin Attendant who has completed at least two (2) years of continuous service may opt to retire and when so retired, he shall be entitled to one and one-half (1 ½) months’ salary for every year of completed service as retirement pay.
2. Optional Retirement
Any Cabin Attendant may retire at his option upon reaching age fifty (50) for females or age fifty-five (55) for males and when so retired, the Cabin Attendant shall be entitled as retirement pay equivalent to:
a. One and one-half (1 ½) month’s basic salary for every year of completed service based on their basic monthly salaries upon reaching the age fifty (50) for females or fifty-five (55) for males;
b. Plus one-half (1/2) month’s basic salary for every year of completed service based on their final monthly basic salary for the year of service rendered after reaching the age of fifty (50) for females or age fifty-five (55) for males.
Xxx
3. Compulsory Retirement
Subject to the grooming standards provisions of this Agreement, compulsory retirement shall be fifty-five (55) for females and sixty (60) for males. Retirement pay for compulsory retirement shall be:
a. One and one-half (1 ½) month’s basic salary for every year of service based on their basic salary upon reaching the age of fifty (50) for females or fifty-five (55) for males.
b. Plus one-half (1/2) month’s basic salary for every year of service based on their final monthly basic salary for the year of services rendered after reaching the age of fifty (50) for females or fifty-five (55) for males.Xxx” (page 69, PAL-FASAP 2000-2005 CBA)
(Emphasis supplied)
20. In an apparent attempt to rectify its discriminatory
retirement policy, Philippine Airlines provided for and enforced
uniform compulsory retirement ages, regardless of sex, for all
5
5
cabin attendants hired at different periods after 22 November
1996. A copy of the PAL-FASAP 2000-2005 CBA is attached as
Annex “A”.
21. Plaintiffs have an indisputable substantive interest in
the PAL-FASAP 2000-2005 CBA. The terms of their employment
are governed by it, including the terms and conditions of their
compulsory retirement at age fifty-five (55).
22. Philippine Airlines has been enforcing and, unless
restrained, will continue to enforce Section 114, Part A of the PAL-
FASAP 2000-2005 CBA to the great prejudice of Plaintiffs.
23. Plaintiffs, exhausting all available administrative
remedies, have on numerous occasions demanded from
Philippine Airlines the removal, abolition or annulment of the
discriminatory provisions of Section 114, Part A of the PAL-FASAP
2000-2005 CBA. Philippine Airlines, however, remains both
unreceptive and intransigent.
III.
CAUSE OF ACTION
24. Plaintiffs have the constitutional right to fundamental
equality with men under Section 14, Article II, 1987 of the
Constitution and, within the specific context of this case, with the
male cabin attendants of Philippine Airlines.
26. Plaintiffs have the statutory right to equal work and
employment opportunities with men under Article 3, Presidential
Decree No. 442, The Labor Code and, within the specific context
of this case, with the male cabin attendants of Philippine Airlines.
27. It is unlawful, even criminal, for an employer to
discriminate against women employees with respect to terms and
6
6
conditions of employment solely on account of their sex under
Article 135 of the Labor Code as amended by Republic Act No.
6725 or the Act Strengthening Prohibition on Discrimination
Against Women.
28. This discrimination against Plaintiffs is likewise against
the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination
Against Women (hereafter, “CEDAW”), a multilateral convention
that the Philippines ratified in 1981. The Government and its
agents, including our courts, not only must condemn all forms of
discrimination against women, but must also implement
measures towards its elimination.
29. This case is a matter of public interest not only
because of Philippine Airlines’ violation of the Constitution and
existing laws, but also because it highlights the fact that twenty-
three (23) years after the Philippine Senate ratifed the CEDAW,
discrimination against women continues. The CEDAW describes
the effects of discriminatory practices:
“discriminatory practices impede the participation of women in all aspects of life of their countries on an equal basis with men, which hampers the increased prosperity of their society and families.”
30. Philippine Airlines paid mere lip service to the
constitutional and statutory rights of women workers when it
hollowly declared a policy on non-discrimination against any
employee by reason of sex under Article III, Section 7, Part C of
the PAL-FASAP 2000-2005 CBA.
31. Section 114, Part A of the PAL-FASAP 2000-2005 CBA
on compulsory retirement from service is invidiously
discriminatory against and manifestly prejudicial to Plaintiffs
because, on the sole and exclusive basis of sex, they are
7
7
compelled to retire at a lower age (fifty-five (55)) relative to their
male counterparts (sixty (60)).
32. Philippine Airlines effectively admitted the
discriminatory nature of its policy on compulsory retirement, and
thus estopped itself, when it provided for uniform compulsory
retirement ages for cabin attendants hired at different periods
after 22 November 1996.
33. There is no reasonable, much less lawful, basis for
Philippine Airlines to distinguish, differentiate or classify cabin
attendants on the basis of sex and thereby arbitrarily set a lower
compulsory retirement age for Plaintiffs for the sole reason that
they are women.
34. Philippine Airline’s discriminatory policy on compulsory
retirement is implicitly based on the demeaning assumption that
female cabin attendants are physically less attractive in their
later years relative to male cabin attendants. This betrays
Philipppine Airlines’ misplaced priorities and assignment of
predominant weight to aesthetics rather than the essential and
substantial functions of a cabin attendant as in-flight service and
safety officer.
35. Section 114, Part A of the PAL-FASAP 2000-2005 CBA
on compulsory retirement from service is manifestly prejudicial to
Plaintiffs because they are deprived of five (5) more years of
productive and gainful employment.
36. Furthermore, the Plaintiffs are prejudiced in that the
lower retirement age directly results in lower retirement pay
since the basis of the latter’s computation under the PAL-FASAP
2000-2005 CBA is the basic monthly salary at the optional
retirement age of fifty (50) for female and fifty-five (55) for male
cabin attendants.
8
8
37. For being patently unconstitutional and unlawful,
Section 114, Part A of the PAL-FASAP 2000-2005 CBA must be
declared invalid and stricken down to the extent that it
discriminates against Plaintiffs.
38. Accordingly, consistent with the constitutional and
statutory guarantee of equality between men and women,
Plaintiffs should be adjudged and declared entitled, like their
male counterparts, to work until sixty (60).
IV.
ALLEGATIONS IN SUPPORT OF
THE ISSUANCE OF A TEMPORARY
RESTRAINING ORDER AND
THE WRIT OF PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
39. Plaintiffs are entitled to fundamental equality with
their male counterparts; to equality in work and employment
opportunities, in terms and conditions of work. Plaintiffs are thus
clearly entitled, before the Constitution and the law, to the urgent
relief they seek.
40. The whole or part of such relief consists in restraining
the commission of the act complained of, that is, the continued
enforcement by Philippine Airlines of Section 114, Part A of the
PAL-FASAP 2000-2005 CBA.
41. The continued enforcement of Section 114, Part A of
the PAL-FASAP 2000-2005 CBA during the pendency of these
proceedings will be a great injustice and will cause grave,
irreparable injury.
42. The situation is most urgent for Plaintiff BERNADETTE
A. CABALQUINTO (hereafter, “Cabalquinto”) who will turn fifty-
9
9
five (55) years of age on 23 August 2004. Philippine Airlines has
already served written notice upon Cabalquinto of the intention
to compel her to retire on 23 August 2004. A copy of Philippine
Airlines’ letter to Cabalquinto is attached as Annex “B”. The other
Plaintiffs will also be compelled to retire soon.
43. The injury that stands to be inflicted upon Plaintiffs is
more than economic in nature. Far more. Indeed, no amount of
pecuniary consideration can conceivably compensate for the
ignominy, the trauma, and the deep sense of violation and
injustice that result from being subjected to invidious sexual and
gender discrimination.
44. By being forced to retire earlier than their male
counterparts, Plaintiffs are furthermore deprived of the pride of
work, of that sense of purpose and worth derived from gainful
occupation, of the chance to make productive use of their late
years, and their right to work free from discriminatory practices.
For these, money offers no recompense.
45. On the other hand, Philippine Airlines does not stand
to suffer damage from being enjoined from enforcing Section
114, Part A of the PAL-FASAP 2000-2005 CBA. While the Plaintiffs
remain in Philippine Airlines’ employ beyond the discriminatory
compulsory retirement age, they continue to discharge the same
valuable in-flight service they have learned and been accustomed
to render through their long years of dedicated, loyal service.
46. The continued enforcement of Section 114, Part A of
the PAL-FASAP 2000-2005 CBA is in violation of Plaintiffs’ rights
respecting the very subject of the instant action or proceedings
and tends indubitably to render the ultimate judgment
ineffectual.
10
10
47. In compliance with the requirement of the Rules of
Court for the issuance of the Writ of Preliminary Injunction and
Temporary Restraining Order, Plaintiffs shall put up a bond in an
amount that the Honorable Court may fix, to the effect that the
Plaintiffs will pay all damages which Philippine Airlines may
sustain by reason of such issuance should it be finally decided
that Plaintiffs were not entitled thereto.
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, it is most respectfully prayed that the
Honorable Court:
a. issue a Temporary Restraining Order against Philippine
Airlines for the preservation of the status quo, enjoining them
from enforcing Section 114, Part A of the PAL-FASAP 2000-2005
CBA;
b. after notice and hearing, issue the Writ of Preliminary
Injunction enjoining Philippine Airlines from enforcing Section
114, Part A of the PAL-FASAP 2000-2005 CBA during the
pendency of these proceedings; and,
c. after trial on the merits:
(i) declare Section 114, Part A of the PAL-
FASAP 2000-2005 CBA INVALID, NULL and VOID to
the extent that it discriminates against Plaintiffs; and,
(ii) declare Plaintiffs entitled to work until sixty
(60) years of age.
Other just and equitable reliefs are likewise prayed for.
Pasig City for Makati, 27 July 2004.
11
11
ROCO KAPUNAN MIGALLOS PEREZ & LUNA
Counsel for Plaintiffs16th Floor, Strata 200 Building, Emerald
AvenuePasig City, Metro Manila
P.O. Box 12974-B, Ortigas Center
By:
LORNA PATAJO-KAPUNANPTR No. 0417524; Pasig City; 1/08/04
IBP O.R. No. 341161; 01/18/93Attorney’s Roll No. 29626
With Co-Counsels:
ROWENA V. GUANZONIBP No. 609194 – 12/17/03 - Bacolod
PTR No. 0132143 – 1/7/04 - CadizRoll of Attorney No. 33534
And
LESTER ALVARADO FLORESPTR No. 0296425, Mandaluyong City,
01/12/04IBP Lifetime Member, Roll No. 02797
Attorney’s Roll No. 44058
12
12